To think this couple's attitude has no place in modern society?

[Georama]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10419543/Christian-couple-ban-gay-man-partner-buying-dream-650-000-sexuality.html

A church-going wife who banned a gay man and his ITV producer partner from buying her £650,000 Surrey home has hit back in the row and insisted they are just sticking to their beliefs.

Luke Whitehouse and Lachlan Mantell were stunned when they were told that they could not buy the three-bedroom home because the Christian owners didn't want to sell to 'two men in a partnership.'

Honestly, they should be ashamed of that text. I hope no estate agent will work with them ever again.

‘ But you can, if you like, say I don’t want gay people in my home. Or I don’t want to sell them my home.’

Not the same thing at all. But, saying either of these things would make many people think that you’re a backward, bigoted fuckwit from the boondocks.
Just as someone saying I don't want black people in my home, I don’t want to sell my house to black people - then maybe add in some batshit crazy religious quote to keep it interesting - would make many people think they’re backward, racist fuckwits.
And in either of those cases I think it’s absolutely fine if the people being discriminated against decided to go public with the story.

@timshortfforthalia quite!

" I'd rather not interact with that potential buyer" - end of story

" I'd rather not interact with that potential buyer, because they are gay" - unlawful discrimination

And I wouldn’t for one second feel sorry for the bigots or the attention that they have brought upon themselves.

Not the same thing at all. But, saying either of these things would make many people think that you’re a backward, bigoted fuckwit from the boondocks.
Just as someone saying I don't want black people in my home, I don’t want to sell my house to black people - then maybe add in some batshit crazy religious quote to keep it interesting - would make many people think they’re backward, racist fuckwits.
And in either of those cases I think it’s absolutely fine if the people being discriminated against decided to go public with the story.

Agree with all of this 👍

Having introduced buyers who were willing and able to proceed, I guess the estate agents' fee is payable. If I were them I'd take the fee and then bail out.

I’m Christian. One of the things I most love Desmond Turu for is saying that he'd have no interest in a homophobic God and would rather go to hell than hang out in a homophobic heaven. That’s how I feel too.

@ConsuelaHammock

Meh ! People can sell their house to whoever they want. I don’t agree with their views but lots of people will agree with them. We cannot police anyone’s own belief system.

People can't refuse to sell their house when it's against the law. Which this is.

As usual Artichoke you've articulate a thought that was only half formed in my head. Whilst i completely abhor the views of this couple I think we need to be able to tolerate people with opinions that are different from our own. These people haven't killed anyone, they've acted in line with their own beliefs in a way that is not criminal. It's shit but there it is. Some people have views that other people find abhorrent. Reacting in the same manner just perpetuates polarisation

But then aren’t we heading back to the time it was fine for B&Bs, landlords and shop owners to stick signs up saying no blacks, no Irish, no Jews? And is it ok to pass this off as people who have beliefs that others find abhorrent and let it stand on that basis? So if I don’t want to sell my house to someone of Pakistani, Jewish, African or Irish heritage should prospective buyers of any of those ethnicities just shut up and go away?

They may have caused offence & outrage but they didn’t do any harm to the couple & therefore they can’t be accused of anything other than religious zealotry, which is exactly what they are; religious zealots who hold the word of the Bible in truth - & expect it to also be upheld in practice.

No. Under the Equality Act 2010 a person who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another by, amongst other matters, not disposing of the premises to that person due to, amongst other matters, the person's sexual orientation. So they clearly can be accused of unlawful discrimination.

I don't believe that anyone who has acted perfectly within the law should have their name, age, close up photograph, fairly easy to find address and employment history detailed in a national newspaper. Particularly off the back of a private message. I don't believe in trial by media. I think the couple were right to go to the papers, but I don't think it was right that the home owners were identified. It doesn't achieve anything, it won't achieve change.

If that makes me a 'homophobic cunt' or whatever else has been slung about on this thread then, whatever.

It's not actually clear whether it was the couple who provided all that identifying info or whether they just went to the Mail with the story and the newspaper found the photos, YouTube video etc.

Where’s the bit in the bible that says you can’t sell your house to a gay couple? It’s really creepy and disturbing that they’re trying to police the morality of whoever buys their house. I’d imagine that’s why they were selling though an internet agency, that has now dropped them - no high street agent would touch them.

But then aren’t we heading back to the time it was fine for B&Bs, landlords and shop owners to stick signs up saying no blacks, no Irish, no Jews?

I think if that were the case then this story wouldn't be news at all?

@LadyNell

Don't agree with it but they are entitled to their opinion

Not when it results in breaching equality duties. And I doubt that any reputable Christian church would like to defend their opinions.

@Omicrone

I don't believe that anyone who has acted perfectly within the law should have their name, age, close up photograph, fairly easy to find address and employment history detailed in a national newspaper. Particularly off the back of a private message. I don't believe in trial by media. I think the couple were right to go to the papers, but I don't think it was right that the home owners were identified. It doesn't achieve anything, it won't achieve change.

If that makes me a 'homophobic cunt' or whatever else has been slung about on this thread then, whatever.

It's not actually clear whether it was the couple who provided all that identifying info or whether they just went to the Mail with the story and the newspaper found the photos, YouTube video etc.

Re write that but remove the bit about the law. They did act unlawfully.

They're completely vile.

@BashStreetKid

They may have caused offence & outrage but they didn’t do any harm to the couple & therefore they can’t be accused of anything other than religious zealotry, which is exactly what they are; religious zealots who hold the word of the Bible in truth - & expect it to also be upheld in practice.

No. Under the Equality Act 2010 a person who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another by, amongst other matters, not disposing of the premises to that person due to, amongst other matters, the person's sexual orientation. So they clearly can be accused of unlawful discrimination.

That's really interesting, thanks for quoting that - here's the link for anyone else who's interested. I didn't realise that that was actually in the EA2010 - BUT I see at the end 'sexual orientation' is not protected here.... any legal bods shed any light?

From the notes:
126.This section makes it unlawful for a person who has the authority to dispose of premises (for example, by selling, letting or subletting a property) to discriminate against or victimise someone else in a number of ways including by offering the premises to them on less favourable terms; by not letting or selling the premises to them or by treating them less favourably.

127.It also makes it unlawful for a person with authority to dispose of premises to harass someone who occupies or applies for them. The Act does not however make it unlawful to harass someone because of sexual orientation or religion or belief when disposing of premises.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/4?view=plain

The legislation:

"(3)A person who has the right to dispose of premises must not, in connection with anything done in relation to their occupation or disposal, harass—

(a)a person who occupies them;

(b)a person who applies for them."

"(6)In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic—

(a)religion or belief;

(b)sexual orientation."
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/33

Re write that but remove the bit about the law. They did act unlawfully.

If they acted unlawfully, then they can be arrested, charged, taken to court, and it can be up to the authorities to release their personal details to the public. Not the Daily Mail.

^^ sorry forgot the first subsection from the legislation
"(1)A person (A) who has the right to dispose of premises must not discriminate against another (B)—

(a)as to the terms on which A offers to dispose of the premises to B;

(b)by not disposing of the premises to B;

(c)in A's treatment of B with respect to things done in relation to persons seeking premises."

@BoredZelda

Shock horror, people have different views. They are entitled to them and can sell to whomever they like.

I wish people didn’t have these views, but I’d rather they were allowed to make these choices than have a world where people with different views are censored somehow.

Nope, under s33 Equality Act 2010 they can't refuse to sell to someone because the prospective buyer is gay - or out to any other protected characteristic. And they can't claim that the fact that religion is a protected characteristic gives them a defence, because they can't point to a genuine religious belief that it's wrong to sell your property to gay people.

I don’t like social media pile ons. It brings out a very unpleasant mob mentality. I do like that we’re moving towards a place where you can’t get away with refusing to do business someone on the basis of their colour, religion or sexuality without consequences. I don’t know how you find a way to get the progress without personal vitriol.

I think it’s important to remember that for the couple trying to buy the house, this was very personal. Imagine how it would feel to be house hunting, dealing directly with the owner not an agent so trying extra hard to give a good impression, and then receive those messages. To be told that you’re not allowed to buy a house because of who you are. We might have come a long way but we still have a long way to go.

@Cultish

But they've crossed the line by refusing a house viewing because this couple is gay.

Not really, because they are under no obligation to sell their house to anyone for any reason that they want. Even if other people don't like that reason.

As I've said, that's not correct. They can't refuse to sell for a reason that is discriminatory under the Equality Act.

@sadpapercourtesan

I hope they can't sell it and end up marooned inside for the rest of their lives.

You know that could be made to happen. Anyone bored could make an offer, string them along for months and then back out, opening it up for another person to do the same. Would be quite funny, just piss them off deliberately.

This is really odd.

I suppose they are entitled to their religious views, however outdated they seem to most of us. However, those views should not stop them selling their house to a gay couple. Do they think they'll be receiving gay money or something? Or do they think that by refusing to sell that the gay guys will magically turn straight? Or they will be punished for interacting with gay people? I thought the bible told people not to judge others anyway. Even respecting their views that they don't approve of gay relationships, they are not the ones supposed to be dishing out judgement and punishment?

Wow disgusting. Really shocking, that people in 2021 can be so thick.

As I've said, that's not correct. They can't refuse to sell for a reason that is discriminatory under the Equality Act.

It will be an interesting case if this does go to court then (rather than trial by Daily Mail).